How do most postmills interpret the 70 weeks of Daniel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doulos McKenzie

Puritan Board Freshman
I was wondering because I was listening to Jeff from Apologia Church talk about why eschatology matters and he made the comment that the first half of the last week was Jesus ministry then once Jesus was "cut off" the second half of the last week was the Apostles ministry to the Jews.
 
It may be your question that is off-putting.

You have asked PB members to generalize, "How do most Xs...," when hardly anyone could be expected to know much more than their own view, and possibly the views of most folk in their own church (where agreement is often assumed, or gathered from a small sampling).

Your question may be interpreted as asking exclusively the postmils of the PB what they think; or interpreted as inquiring what anyone more informed particularly of those beliefs of the postmils thinks is true respecting your question.

How many self-identified postmils there may be on the PB, and of them: who feels qualified to answer, will have some effect (I think) on how much feedback you receive.

For myself, I self-identify as an amillennialist; I would be hesitant, or at least cautious, to speak for "most" of those of similar affiliation; let alone for "most postmils."
 
It is generally thought that Jesus was cut off in the middle of the week and would bring an end to sacrifice and offering. First time learning of the Apostles' view however. But by and large the 70 weeks are over. However, I do think the latter half of the week referred to the tribulation and Jewish wars as per I think, Gentry.
 
John Brown of Haddington in loc.: "That these verses relate to the manifestation of Jesus Christ to fulfil all righteousness, and make full atonement for the sins of his people, to fulfil all the ancient types and prophecies, and to receive the Holy Ghost above measure himself, and miraculously pour him out upon his followers, for the restraining of iniquity, and the introduction of remarkable holiness into the world, among both Jews and Gentiles, is generally agreed. That each of the weeks mentioned denotes seven years, a day for a year (Ezek. 4:6), and that the whole of the numbers is intended to point out the time of our Saviour's appearance, is also agreed. In applying the weeks there has been great difference among calculators: but it is enough that they must all fix the conclusion of the weeks near the time of our Saviour's death. From Ezra's commission, by Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the 7th year of his reign, to restore the affairs of the Jewish church and state, to the death of Christ, is precisely 70 weeks, or 490 years. From Nehemiah's commission to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, to the death of Christ, is 490 lunar years, and a little more; or perhaps precisely 490 to the rejection of the Jews, and calling of the Gentiles. From Ezra's commission to Nehemiah's finishing his reformation might be precisely seven weeks, or 49 years; thence to John Baptist's manifestation (by his ministry) of Christ as come, 62 weeks, or 434 years; thence to Christ's death another week, or seven years; — 490 in all. Perhaps, too, from Julius Caesar's edict, for the Jews to repair and fortify their cities, to Christ's birth, might be precisely 49 years; and as much from Herod's building of the inner temple to Christ's baptism; and as much from his finishing the outer temple to Christ's death.

In the last week (ver. 27), the covenant was confirmed with many, and the daily sacrifice abolished, either by Christ's ministrations, and the conversion of multitudes to him by the covenant of grace, and by his rendering useless all the typical sacrifices by his death; or near forty years afterward, when Titus made leagues of peace with sundry of the Asiatic nations, that he might have the more leisure to make war against the Jews; by which their temple was destroyed, their civil and ecclesiastical constitution overthrown, and themselves generally murdered or driven from the country; under the dreadful effects of which they have remained for above 1700 years past."
 
So pleased when finding an earlier author who expresses at least the possibility or interpretive option on some point (even if not preferring the same options all at once). Brown's reference to Titus' unsparing demolition of the national people after a grace-reprieve of one 40yr generation, for fulfilling the final 1/2 seven, has been my fixed conclusion for some time.
 
I think in particular you are asking for a "postmil" view with a preterist/theonomic context. Rev. Winzer has provided a "classic" postmil approach to the text.
 
It is generally thought that Jesus was cut off in the middle of the week and would bring an end to sacrifice and offering. First time learning of the Apostles' view however. But by and large the 70 weeks are over. However, I do think the latter half of the week referred to the tribulation and Jewish wars as per I think, Gentry.
Just curious if postmill would be held as a position by that many reformed?
 
Eschatology is perhaps the one doctrine that was not settled in the early church, nor by the Reformation divines, and is still being sorted out and refined.
 
If we agree with John Brown, does this mean John the Baptist started his ministry 3 1/2 years prior to Christ's baptism?
 
It was the majority position of the Puritans.
Eschatology is perhaps the one doctrine that was not settled in the early church, nor by the Reformation divines, and is still being sorted out and refined.
Didn't the Reformers by and large focus most of their efforts towards getting the real and true Gospel back into the Church itself? So they just assumed over the views held by Church of Rome on this area?
 
Hello David,

You said, "Didn't the Reformers by and large focus most of their efforts towards getting the real and true Gospel back into the Church itself?" I would answer yes.

The second sentence I'm not sure what you are saying.
 
Hello David,

You said, "Didn't the Reformers by and large focus most of their efforts towards getting the real and true Gospel back into the Church itself?" I would answer yes.

The second sentence I'm not sure what you are saying.

In his second sentence I believe David is questioning whether the majority view of the Puritans was Postmillenial by default so to speak, as they inherited it from Rome and spent their theological energies on recovering the gospel rather than discerning biblical eschatology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks, Kaleb. So, David, if Kaleb is right in his understanding, I would ask you this question: where do you get that Rome was postmil? I always thought they held to a vague amillennialism.
 
Thanks, Kaleb. So, David, if Kaleb is right in his understanding, I would ask you this question: where do you get that Rome was postmil? I always thought they held to a vague amillennialism.
They do, as they see the church as the Kingdom of God, and most reformers were pretty much A Mil. correct?
 
Didn't the Reformers by and large focus most of their efforts towards getting the real and true Gospel back into the Church itself? So they just assumed over the views held by Church of Rome on this area?
While the Reformers did not exhaustively touch on everything, they still used Scripture to back up their ideas. That is why they rejected so much of the Romanists views. The idea that amilliennialism is a hold over because they were lazy is silly. Anabaptists at the time were like today's red letter Christians, with some Marconite tendencies mixed in, and staunchly millennial. The reformers fought against their errors as well.
They do, as they see the church as the Kingdom of God, and most reformers were pretty much A Mil. correct?
In what world is the church not a part of the kingdom? I appreciate your desire to learn more but, I ask that you evaluate your presuppositions regarding Israel and the church. As a former dispensationalist I understand it can be hard but, I have realized that so much has to be read into the texts to get the idea that church and Israel are seperate.
 
Last edited:
While the Reformers did not exhaustively touch on everything, they still used Scripture to back up their ideas. That is why they rejected so much of the Romanists views. The idea that amilliennialism is a hold over because they were lazy is silly. Anabaptists at the time were like today's red letter Christians, with some Marconite tendencies mixed in, and staunchly millennial. The reformers fought against their errors as well.

In what world is the church not a part of the kingdom? I appreciate your desire to learn more but, I ask that you evaluate your presuppositions regarding Israel and the church. As a former dispensationalist I understand it can be hard but, I have realized that so much has to be read into the texts to get the idea that church and Israel are seperate.
 
I am still working to get there, as at first was full on Scofield lite, saw it as saved by the Law and now under Grace, but now do see one people pf God, as saved by Grace alone faith alone regardless which time era salvation is under, but still do see God still in some fashion dealing with the Jews in the sense of saving out from israel a remnant in each generation, and not dealing with them no longer at all, as Pretierists seem to be saying after AD 70...
 
I am still working to get there, as at first was full on Scofield lite, saw it as saved by the Law and now under Grace, but now do see one people pf God, as saved by Grace alone faith alone regardless which time era salvation is under, but still do see God still in some fashion dealing with the Jews in the sense of saving out from israel a remnant in each generation, and not dealing with them no longer at all, as Pretierists seem to be saying after AD 70...

You have just described yourself as a Progressive Dispensationalist. Your view is not Reformed.
 
This is why see myself as still a work in progress, as still trying to sort out the major difference between between being a reformed or a calvinist Baptist!

But then why do you claim to hold to the 1689 and claim to be a Reformed Baptist if in fact you don't actual agree with the historic Reformed understanding of these subjects?
 
Because you can be a reformed Baptist and believe that toward the end of this age, many of ethnic Israel will benefit from God's saving grace through the renewal of the Holy Spirit; which I believe is all Dachaser was suggesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think this thread has run its course. Thanks for all who participated. It was intersting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top